DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Mikami (US 20190041620 A1) in view of Filkins (US 20110235875 A1), Jeys (US 20110051137 A1) and Iizuka (US 6417953 B1). Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Additionally, Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Imoto (US 20180073976 A1) in view of Filkins, Jeys, and Iizuka. Therefore, this rejection has also been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection is made based in part on newly found reference Magdich (RU 2202818 C1; 2003).
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims, dependent claims 123 and 126 are now indicated as containing allowable subject matter in addition to the previous claims indicated as containing allowable subject matter (see below for more details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 109, 111-112, and 114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto (US 20180073976 A1) in view of Filkins, Jeys, Iizuka, and Magdich (RU 2202818 C1).
Regarding claim 109, Imoto teaches a method comprising:
generating with a light beam generator an output beam comprising a plurality of angularly deflected beams each having independently controlled spatial position (paragraph 97) by irradiating an acousto-optic deflector with a light source and controlling the spatial position of each beam by adjusting drive signals applied to the acousto-optic deflector (paragraph 97; top box of figure 11)
splitting the plurality of angularly deflected laser beams into a first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and a second plurality of angularly deflected beams (top box of figure 11); and
optically combining (27a) the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams with the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams in a manner such that the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams at least partially overlap with the second plurality of angularly deflected beams (beat frequency in paragraph 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Imoto doesn’t explicitly teach the the light beam is a laser beam. However, in the other embodiments Imoto teaches the light beam is a laser beam (paragraphs 49, 64, 105-106, 109). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light beam of figure 11 of Imoto be a laser beam in order to have precise control over the light beam parameters such as intensity and wavelength.
Imoto doesn’t explicitly teach each beam having independently-controlled intensity; controlling intensity of each laser beam; and the adjusting is an adjusting of frequency and amplitude.
Like Imoto (and like Applicant), Iizuka is also directed to generating a plurality of beams and to acoustic optic modulators and teaches modifying the acousto-optic modulator such that each beam having independently-controlled intensity (column 4, lines 15-20 and column 3, lines 55-65). Iizuka also teaches this provides the benefit of controlling the intensity spatial distribution of the resulting light beam pattern (column 4, lines 45-60; abstract; for context, see column 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art of optical measurements would know the usefulness of this control of the intensity spatial distribution. As evidence, see for example, Filkins, which is also directed to optical measurements and samples and teaches that controlling the spatial distribution of the intensity of a light beam provides the benefits of having a high signal to noise ratio and not oversaturating the detector (paragraph 45). Additionally, like Mikami (and like Applicant), Jeys is concerned with optical measurements of samples, including fluorescence measurements and teaches that having independently controlling intensity in different regions of space (paragraph 44). Additionally, Jeys teaches this provides the benefit of more precise determination of sample location (abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that each beam having independently-controlled intensity and controlling the intensity of each laser beam in order to have greater control over the intensity spatial distribution of the light beam, achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio, not oversaturating the detector, and achieving a more precise determination of the sample feature’s location.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the adjusting is an adjusting of frequency and amplitude.
However, the above combination teaches adjusting the drive signal to the acousto-optic deflector to control the spatial position and intensity of the resulting beam (e.g. see the citations above). A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that adjusting the frequency and amplitude of the drive signals applied to the acousto-optic deflector provides control of the spatial position and intensity of the beam; for example, see the additional prior art, as well as Magdich. Like the above combination (and like the instant application), Magdich is concerned with acousto-optic deflectors and teaches controlling the spatial position and intensity of each laser beam by adjusting frequency and amplitude of drive signals applied to the acousto-optic deflector (second to last paragraph of page 2 of attached translation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such the method comprises controlling the spatial position and intensity of each laser beam by adjusting frequency and amplitude of drive signals applied to the acousto-optic deflector in order to provide precise control over the position and intensity of the laser beam without adding a multitude of additional optical components, which provides the additional benefits of achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio, not oversaturating the detector, and achieving a more precise determination of the sample feature’s location.
Regarding claim 110, Imoto teaches the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams are generated by splitting a laser beam outputted from an acousto-optic device irradiated by a laser (figure 11 and paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 111, Imoto teaches the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams are identical to the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams (identical is interpreted in light of the specification to mean identical in one or more of quantity, amplitude, and frequency. In the present case, it’s identical in quantity, as seen in figure 11, top box, where there is two each).
Regarding claim 112, Imoto teaches the angularly deflected laser beams are aligned along a horizontal axis (figure 11).
Regarding claim 114, in the above combination the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams have a predetermined intensity profile along a horizontal axis (since the laser from Imoto enters known optical elements, including AODs, which affects the intensity profile in known ways; Iizuka, columns 3-4; Jeys, paragraph 44).
Claim 113 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto, Filkins, Iizuka, Jeys, and Magdich as applied to claim 109 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20200263972 A1).
Regarding claim 113, Imoto doesn’t explicitly teach inverting the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and optically combining the inverted second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams with the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams.
Yamaguchi is directed to a similar optical measurement system and teaches that inverting the beams in one arm allows one to include an adjustable optical length in the other arm while still matching the other arm (paragraphs 84-88 and figure 7).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mikami such that the method comprises inverting the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and optically combining the inverted second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams with the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams in order to be able to include an adjustable optical length in the other arm while still matching the other arm.
Claims 115-116 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto, Filkins, Iizuka, Jeys, and Magdich as applied to claim 114 above, and further in view of Bravo de Vega (US 9931839 B1).,
Regarding claims 115-116, in the above combination the intensity profile comprises increasing intensity from the center to the edges of the angularly deflected laser beams along the horizontal axis (Jeys, paragraph 44); the intensity at the center of the angularly deflected laser beams is from 0.1% to 99% of the intensity at the edge of the angularly deflected laser beams along the horizontal axis (Jeys, paragraph 44).
Additionally, Bravo de Vega is also directed to an optical measurement method and teaches the intensity profile comprises increasing intensity from the center to the edges of the beams along a horizontal axis; the intensity at the center of the beams is from 0.1% to 99% of the intensity at the edge of the beams along the horizontal axis (column 2, lines 50-68).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the intensity profile comprises increasing intensity from the center to the edges of the angularly deflected laser beams along the horizontal axis; the intensity at the center of the angularly deflected laser beams is from 0.1% to 99% of the intensity at the edge of the angularly deflected laser beams along the horizontal axis – in order adapt the beam profile to the particular samples and measurement techniques desired.
Claims 118-119 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto, Filkins, Iizuka, Jeys, and Magdich, as applied to claim 109 above, and further in view of Diebold (WO 2014110290 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 118, the above combination comprises applying a plurality of drive signals to an acousto-optic device; and irradiating the acousto-optic device with the laser to generate an output laser beam comprising a plurality of angularly deflected laser beams (see citations with respect to claim 109 above).
Imoto doesn’t explicitly teach the drive signals are radiofrequency drive signals.
Diebold is directed to a similar optical measurement method and to acousto-optic devices and teaches applying a plurality of radiofrequency drive signals to an acousto-optic device (20; paragraph 38). Additionally, Diebold teaches this provides the benefit of enabling high speeds (paragraph 118).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
424
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
552
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the drive signals be radiofrequency drive signals because these are typical in the art for the purpose of controlling an acoustic optical deflector and in order to enable high speed measurements.
Regarding claim 119, in the above combination the amplitude of the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams is based on the amplitude of the radiofrequency drive signals applied to the acousto-optic device (see citations above, such as Magdich, second to last paragraph of page 2 of attached translation).
Claims 120-121 and 125 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto, Filkins, Iizuka, Jeys, Magdich, as applied to claim 109 above, and further in view of Mikami (US 20190041620 A1).
Regarding claim 120, Imoto teaches the method further comprises: irradiating a sample with the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams; and detecting light from the irradiated sample (figures 10-11 and associated text).
Imoto doesn’t explicitly teach the sample is in a flow stream.
Mikami is directed to a similar method and teaches the method comprises irradiating a sample propagated in a flow stream with the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams; and detecting light from the irradiated sample in the flow stream (implied by paragraphs 199-100 and figure 10, interference light beam arrow, since the text says the other components are the same as figure, 1, it’s implicit in figure 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such the sample is in a flow stream – in order to be able to determine information about particles in a flow stream, which is desired in the art.
Regarding claim 121, Imoto teaches the method comprises measuring the detected light at one or more wavelengths (figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 125, Imoto teaches generating a detection signal in response to light from the irradiated sample; and determining one or more beat frequencies (figures 10-11 and paragraphs 89, 100-101).
Imoto doesn’t explicitly teach the sample is a flow stream; frequency demultiplexing the detection signal.
Mikami is directed to a similar method and teaches the method further comprises: generating a detection signal in response to light from the irradiated flow stream; and frequency demultiplexing the detection signal to determine one or more beat frequencies (paragraphs 73-77).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the method comprises: generating a detection signal in response to light from the irradiated flow stream; and frequency demultiplexing the detection signal to determine one or more beat frequencies – in order to be able to determine information about particles in a flow stream, which is desired in the art.
Claim 122 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto, Filkins, Iizuka, Jeys, Magdich, and Mikamias applied to claim 109 above, and further in view of Marks (US 2018/0038784 A1).
Regarding claim 122, Mikami doesn’t explicitly teach monitoring the detected light from the irradiated sample in the flow stream to detect spatial drift of the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams.
Marks is directed to a similar optical measurement method and teaches monitoring the detected light from the irradiated sample in the flow stream to detect spatial drift of the beams; adjusting the spatial position of the laser beams when spatial drift is detected (paragraphs 598-599 and 655-657).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify mikami such that the method comprises monitoring the detected light from the irradiated sample in the flow stream to detect spatial drift of the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams – in order to ensure accurate and efficient measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 123-124 and 126-127 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 123-124, the prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “generating with a light beam generator an output laser beam comprising a plurality of angularly deflected laser beams each having independently-controlled intensity and spatial position by irradiating an acousto-optic deflector with a laser and controlling the spatial position and intensity of each laser beam by adjusting frequency and amplitude of drive signals applied to the acousto-optic deflector; splitting the plurality of angularly deflected laser beams into a first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and a second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams; and optically combining the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams with the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams in a manner such that the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams at least partially overlap with the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams; … irradiating a sample propagated in a flow stream with the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams… monitoring the detected light from the irradiated sample in the flow stream to detect spatial drift of the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams… adjusting the spatial position of the combined first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams on the flow stream when spatial drift is detected,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 126-127, the prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “generating with a light beam generator an output laser beam comprising a plurality of angularly deflected laser beams each having independently-controlled intensity and spatial position by irradiating an acousto-optic deflector with a laser and controlling the spatial position and intensity of each laser beam by adjusting frequency and amplitude of drive signals applied to the acousto-optic deflector; splitting the plurality of angularly deflected laser beams into a first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams and a second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams; and optically combining the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams with the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams in a manner such that the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams at least partially overlap with the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams; … generating a detection signal in response to light from the irradiated flow stream; and frequency demultiplexing the detection signal to determine one or more beat frequencies … each of the beat frequencies corresponds to a frequency difference between a pair of overlapping beams from the first plurality of angularly deflected laser beams with the second plurality of angularly deflected laser beams,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Additional Prior Art
US 4614408 A reads, “The arrangement includes an acoustooptic deflector which, in response to a variable frequency signal, deflects received plane-polarized light. The frequency of the signal controls the deflection angle while the amplitude of the signal controls the beam intensity.”
Cordingley (US 20130010349 A1) is also directed to acoustic optic devices and teaches the amplitude of the beam is based on the amplitude of the radiofrequency drive signals (energy of beam and amplitude of RF in paragraph 72).
US 20170102314 A1 (common inventor) Discloses “[0065] In the operational mode in which a sample is illuminated concurrently with a plurality of excitation frequencies, the RF comb generator 20 applies a plurality of RF drive signals concurrently to the AOD 18. By way of example, the number of simultaneously applied RF drive signals can be in a range of about 20 to about 200. The interaction of the laser beam and the drive signals results in generation of a plurality of angularly separated laser beams each having a frequency shift corresponding to one of the drive signals relative to the frequency of the laser beam generated by the laser 12. Without being limited to any particular theory, in an AOD, a piezoelectric transducer can generate radiofrequency phonons in a crystal, e.g., a quartz crystal, and the scattering of the optical photons of the laser beam by such radiofrequency phonons can result in the generation of the frequency-shifted laser beams. One of these frequency-shifted beams 22 is herein referred to as a “local oscillator” (LO) beam and the remainder of the frequency shifted beams 24 are herein referred to as “RF comb beams.” The angular separation of the frequency shifted beams can be, for example, in a range of about 1 milliradians to about 100 milliradians. For example, the angular separation of the frequency shifted beams may range from 2 milliradians to about 95 milliradians, such as from 3 milliradians to about 90 milliradians, such as from 4 milliradians to about 85 milliradians, such as from 5 milliradians to about 80 milliradians and including from 10 milliradians to about 75 milliradians.
[0066] The LO and the RF comb beams pass through a lens 26, which is in this embodiment a positive lens with a focal length of about 50 mm. After passage through the lens 26, the LO laser beam is intercepted by a mirror 28, which redirects the LO beam in a different direction (in this embodiment in a direction substantially orthogonal to the original propagation direction of the LO beam). The mirror 28 is positioned relative to the RF comb beams such that these beams miss the mirror 28 and propagate to a lens 30 (which in this embodiment has a focal length of 200 mm). In this manner, the LO beam and the RF comb beams are directed along different propagation directions. The use of the pickoff mirror 28 in a manner disclosed above allows utilizing a single AOD to generate both the LO beam and the RF comb beams and combining them in a manner discussed below to generate an excitation beam for illuminating a sample. The use of a single AOD, rather than multiple AODs (e.g., two AODs, one for generating the LO beam and the other for generating the RF comb beams), simplifies the design of the system and further allows efficient use of the system in multiple distinct operational modes, as discussed in more detail below.”
PNG
media_image5.png
466
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
US 20070258119 A1 discloses
PNG
media_image6.png
414
698
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US 6775051 B2 discloses
PNG
media_image7.png
498
812
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights